Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

page: 8
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by rickyrrr
 



In a sense, that would be "acknowledging the conscious" in a way that is obviously not always done.


All I can say is that quantum theory alone does not acknowledge consciousness at all. While there are some interpretations that develop from experimentation on quantum theory, these interpretations are not considered facts nor have they been proven as of yet. Most are borderline unscientific due to being unfalsifiable, like MWI. There is no real 'weirdness; to quantum mechanics in the way as proposed by erroneous sensationalized media like the clip posted at the start of this thread. Yes, QM is counter intuitive to an extent, but never has the experiments proven any aspect of consciousness having any direct role in their outcomes.


Yes, that's right, but that is not what I was trying to say. The very fact that quantum theory gives rise to apparent "paradoxes" reveals a lack of acknowledgement of the conscious in an entirely different way than postulated by this thread.

Put simply, anybody who recognizes that the map is not the territory would not find those paradoxes surprising in the least. The fact that they seem surprising to so many, including in fact, many scientists reveals how few people understand the difference between the map and the territory. Understanding that the map is not the territory is, in a way, understanding the limits of our consciousness and how it cannot be "factored out" no matter how hard we try.

In as much as quantum theory does not acknowledge consciousness, there is no theory of the universe that "factors out" brain activity because one cannot make a theory of anything without having brain activity happening. It just so happens that brain activity is also widely known as consciousness.


-rrr




posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





All I can say is that quantum theory alone does not acknowledge consciousness at all. While there are some interpretations that develop from experimentation on quantum theory, these interpretations are not considered facts nor have they been proven as of yet. Most are borderline unscientific due to being unfalsifiable, like MWI. There is no real 'weirdness; to quantum mechanics in the way as proposed by erroneous sensationalized media like the clip posted at the start of this thread. Yes, QM is counter intuitive to an extent, but never has the experiments proven any aspect of consciousness having any direct role in their outcomes.


god your so .....




All I can say is that quantum theory alone does not acknowledge consciousness





QM is counter intuitive to an extent, but never has the experiments proven any aspect of consciousness having any direct role in their outcomes.


do you make this up as you go along?

Flaw one.

You are conscious

2nd flaw..

QM is counter intuitive to an extent

3rd flaw

There is no real 'weirdness; to quantum mechanics in the way as proposed by erroneous sensationalized media like the clip posted at the start of this thread

Lie

You do know what QP and QM are right?

or do i need to give you a masterclass in this thread as well?



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 





In as much as quantum theory does not acknowledge consciousness


It does by its very nature..

quantum theory is YOU trying to understand WHY THE EFF you are here..

mathmatics shows this using QM.. it states

For me to be here effects everything i know and i dont know and by me asking what i do or dont know will effect the outcome both postive and negtive regardless of the question.

POINT BLANK

if you can not grasp that aspect then you and some others are talking out of there blackholes to use a pun.

the problem we as mathmations face is WHY

this is not a mesurble number but leads to infinate outcomes...

So the underlying principle is the ANSWER is not the problem the function of WHY is let me show you

psauf-afig0agdpjnandna0duadh

was that random? Or was it meant to be that way?

QM says BOTH
and its true

-0-- edited

for in order for the above to be random would mean i was random! but im not random am i because you are reading what im saying?

So wha i in fact type was always going to be read by you since the begining of creation!

If it wasnt iether YOU or ME would not be sitting here

I would not have typed it and you would never have read it


see?

[edit on 24-12-2009 by 13579]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
All of you are caught up in your own illusion.

Arguing about this and that, evaluating people on fervid or weak statements.

You spin the wheel of kharma as it bounces back and forth through eachother with negativeness.

Everyone just needs to forgive eachother and themselves and start off with a more productive positive conversation treating everyone equally and considering information with an upmost important attitude.

This thread is a replica of what goes on in relation to violence etc... in everyday human society.

If everyone just understood were all one and love eachother like they loved themselves than humanity would evolve into truely what it is supposed to be. Where is the love?

Namaste

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Psychonaughty]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


love is an illusion

get use to it.



dogs dont love my cats... what makes you so special?



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I've heard that before how we do not actually touch anything. Amazing really.


I don't understand this interpretation. Sure we "touch" something. It may actually be an electrical field from an electron shell interacting with another but that's good enough to count in my book.


Matter and conscousness do not actually, for want of better term, stick to each other. They are not really in contact. I surprise some people when I say that the soul is not actually in the world.


Per my first statement, what is "contact"? What's "the world"? As far as I can observe there's only one world regardless if our familiar material one is not the totality of it.


The soul is controlling the mind-body in the same way the humans control the avatars in the movie Avatar. It is not actually in the body.


Sort of. It's not quite like jumping in a vehicle but the body is more of a place to focus the processes that constitute a human manifestation.


I agree with you on the materialist fundamentalists that have swamped this thread.

They don't seem to realise that science no longer supports a material world.


Man, I hate to side with sirnex on this one but your interpretations of things do tend to have a sensationalist quality. The difference is I'll just be straight about my views without ad homs and anger, of which I have none.

How is that science is debunked if it in fact produced the evidence of something that is different than perception would lead you to conclude or even if it's own investigations turn up unexpected and unaccounted for phenomena?

How is particles as forces, fields and probabilities not a material world? What is the working definition of a "material world" for you? Big, solid things that are really real in the way they appear?

Help me out here. I'm not really certain where you stand.

I'll give credit to sirnex though in that he makes it clear where he stands. Thus, I know how to engage him in compatible discourse.


The so-called many interpetations of QM is cling onto the material world, when in fact it is slipping away day by day.


Which now? MWI, collapse and decoherence are clinging? Would consciousness as the reason for resolving a system into a particular state from the set of all possible states not also be an interpretation?


Well, as it happens with all new scientific paradigms; as soon as the evidence builds up and become too overwhelming to deny anymore, the old paradigm will come crumbling down.


This is what it should do when there is sufficient evidence that models must be refined, sure. I have no problem. Real science shouldn't have an ego. Clearly any such property is that of the individual people involved.

I see alot of clinging going on all over the place, material or spiritual. I'll agree with the Buddhists that these attachments are indeed the cause suffering.


It is only a matter of time before new-age science takes over.


I don't think we will quite recognize what grows out of all this. Somehow I doubt it will be strictly "New Age" in nature. Frankly I despise the misleading crap that come out of it because it's actually damaging to spiritual attainment. It's feel good, sound good nonsense for "your" ego, so that "you" can feel "Oh, I'm so spiritual 'n' stuff." No, "you" are not even on the bloody path (well, technically everyone is but just making it all take longer).

Nothing in my quests suggests science will move aside for anything resembling "pure" spirituality of old nor that it should. The consciousness, the subjective aspect, will be given its proper role and attention. No theory of everything can ignore that and be a TOE.

Ok, ok. It's time to calm down and go have a good time (by examining ethanol-induced qualia, which I hardly ever do).


Merry Christmas!



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 


You are not a dog or a cat.

You've evolved from that clearly as you are self-aware of not only your existence but of intelligence.

Love is not an illusion love IS everything. The very reason for something existing is the love that causes it to exist. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

Light IS love and love IS light. Our sun would be considered the closes thing to the original thought/word of the original great sun. Notice how it shines and creates with nothing in return, that love/light or light/love in service to all that it is.

Your version of love is the illusive one.



Namaste

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Psychonaughty]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by rickyrrr
 





In as much as quantum theory does not acknowledge consciousness


It does by its very nature..

quantum theory is YOU trying to understand WHY THE EFF you are here..

mathmatics shows this using QM.. it states

For me to be here effects everything i know and i dont know and by me asking what i do or dont know will effect the outcome both postive and negtive regardless of the question.

POINT BLANK

if you can not grasp that aspect then you and some others are talking out of there blackholes to use a pun.

the problem we as mathmations face is WHY

this is not a mesurble number but leads to infinate outcomes...

So the underlying principle is the ANSWER is not the problem the function of WHY is let me show you

psauf-afig0agdpjnandna0duadh

was that random? Or was it meant to be that way?

QM says BOTH
and its true

-0-- edited

for in order for the above to be random would mean i was random! but im not random am i because you are reading what im saying?

So wha i in fact type was always going to be read by you since the begining of creation!

If it wasnt iether YOU or ME would not be sitting here

I would not have typed it and you would never have read it


see?

[edit on 24-12-2009 by 13579]


Accepting that your perception is everything is what I've been talking about all along. Quantum theory reveals that science historically failed to recognize this. But while quantum theory presents excellent opportunities to philosophize about perception it does not consist of the study of perception itself, nor does it mean that you create an "objective" universe outside you by looking at it. Rather it suggests that we should *GIVE UP* believing that an objective universe is equivalent to our perception of it. they are only connected through our measurements and our perception will always be incomplete. Any appearance to the contrary just goes to show that our understanding about the universe was just missing yet another piece.


-rrr



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
For the record I am not appealing to QM to prove that the universe is conscious(the subject matter of the thread) that is because QM is not a complete theory and therefore not proven. There are many interpretations of QM(most of them desperately trying to hold onto realism) and many rival theories(String theory etc) There is no universal agreement in Science on what reality is. Thus I see no reason to appeal to something so dubious.

I base my arguments on rational reasoning/philosophy to prove that the univers is consciousness. I said earlier on as well, I couldn't careless about physics all that much. Most of its based on conjecture and false conclusions anyway.

If you want to know causes of reality you do philosophy, not physics. The limits of physics end at the empirical. The philosopher begins their investigation from the limit of the empirical, from which begins the rational and then ends at the phenomenlogical.

It doesn't matter what science tells you in the end, it's just another explanation amongst numerous competing explanations.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by sirnex
 


I hate to disappont you but I am a dude
(You assume too much for somebody who accuses of others of unfounded conjecture)




WTF? You let that go on for so long! Why didn't you correct it sooner? I would have at least preferred using the correct pronouns.

Too funny.




posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 





Well, as it happens with all new scientific paradigms; as soon as the evidence builds up and become too overwhelming to deny anymore, the old paradigm will come crumbling down.


Funny and here is why




Quantum mechanics (QM) is a set of principles describing the physical reality at the atomic level of matter (molecules and atoms) and the subatomic (electrons, protons, and even smaller particles). These descriptions include the simultaneous wave-like and particle-like behavior of both matter[1] and radiation[2] ("wave–particle duality"). Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical description of reality, like any scientific model. Some of its predictions and implications go against the "common sense" of how humans see a set of bodies (a system) behave. This isn't necessarily a failure of QM - it's more of a reflection of how humans understand space and time on larger scales (e.g., centimetres, seconds) rather than much smaller.


describing the physical reality at the atomic level of matter



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Well i know what reality is....

you are an answer to a question you didnt ask resulting in your very being and the self replication of the universe you inhabit!



many questions and many answers!

But who is asking really? YOU? or the thing that MADE YOU

humilty helps

so does a bit of commen sens and taking the time to look outside and inside and see that you are no different than what you are "as a function"

mind has no shape
universe has no shape

coincidence?

i think not



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 


Actually your a part of a question that you did ask, but in doing so forgot you answered the question for that certain experience.

You are the supreme being, everything is, there is nothing that created you, you are the creator of yourself.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


It is only incompleat if you leave out the person observing..

The "unified field theory" is in deed correct as i show on an ATS thread i made..

The higgs boson is US.. why? well how the eff do we make a calculation if we are not here? were is that factord into math other than in QP?


They fail to grasp the most basic part of math.. WE DO THE MATH not MATH some TOOL to count apples

1+1 = 2 . this is applied math.
1+1 = 3 . this is YOU doing math

why 3? because that is the you and the Outcome.

cant do 1+1 if im not here can i?



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


I really wish I hadn't of forgotten. I kind of understand now all that knowledge I have worked so hard on acquiring and understanding would just come to me in a flash the moment I leave this body. Actually not even that, you could spend your life not reading a single book on metaphysics and philosophy, and understand it all in a flash of intuition in meditation.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


well in essence yest but sadley NO.. by that i mean we DIE.. its not like we get to live for ever tho granted our engery/matter go back to once it came "dunno were" but stil...

the observation of matter creates matter.. you are made from it you interact with it you observer it.

Some call it a wave or vibration, this could be true.. as we do not see 99.99999 of space yet we are made / observe the rest.

so we create matter just by viewing it.. so yea we are the "one" or our own little mini universer.

But something did in fact come first.

and that was A question

"The universe is a physical representaion of a question"

Feel free to quote me.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Or you could end up in the same place you was be for you was born

how did that work out for you?

good heh?



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
A Conscious universe
is the
stupidist
thing
EVER
makes no sence
at all
it's almost as bad as the gaia thing
thinking a planet has consciousnes


[edit on 24-12-2009 by AmericanDaughter]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AmericanDaughter
 


and yet i the cells in your body do not know you have a brain do they?

tell me one thing

how is it your body knows what is is doing without you telling it to do so?

genes? what makes the gense know what they are doing? what make blah blah

you see the very nature of the problem is the very mindset of the people...

always trying to find the answers always

yet they never understand why it is they ask in the first place

backward thinking if you ask me

The question IS the answer not what comes from the QUESTION

what came first the chicken or the egg?

answer? THE QUESTION



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 

Actually not even that, you could spend your life not reading a single book on metaphysics and philosophy, and understand it all in a flash of intuition in meditation.


The act of trying to bring it back into a lower state of awareness is where it gets so utterly messed up and distorted since it isn't sufficiently developed to contain it. I find so much endless frustration in expression sometimes I don't know why I bother trying. It must be some aspect of the growth cycle or perhaps a child-like "come see what I found".

Even if those informational sources assist in expressing the intuition, too much attachment to any particular view is a going astray. Learn what knowledge is actually saying but still remain suspicious of it as Truth.





top topics
 
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join